17.10.1996

Small victory for democracy

SL Kenning looks at latest developments in the Socialist Labour Party

Last time, on September 12, the South London SLP meeting was almost wrecked by the aggressive, high-handed and foul-mouthed behaviour of branch chair Tony Goss. Having been out-voted, this little Napoleon stormed out and was loyally followed by seven other anti-democrats, including branch secretary Helen Drummond. Nineteen comrades dutifully remained and continued the meeting under the chairmanship of Southwark SLP councillor Ian Driver. After having been sworn at and generally abused by comrade Goss, these comrades unanimously agreed that he must “offer a full apology to the branch at the next meeting” (for a detailed account see Weekly Worker September 26 1996).

That vote explains the presence of both comrades Patrick Sikorski and Brian Heron at the October 10 meeting. They were there to rescue the situation for Fisc and its allies by breaking up South London into seven micro-branches. Of course, not being constituencies for the bourgeois parliament, Lambeth, Lewisham, Greenwich, Bexley, Croydon, Southwark and South West branches “would have no more constitutional status than the current South London branch” (minutes of meeting of South London EC with NEC members and party’s general secretary).

There were about 30 comrades present at the Southwark Women’s Centre. Comrade Goss sat brooding at the back of the room as comrade Drummond opened the meeting. She had her script ready. Without waiting for agreement she breathlessly announced that NEC member Heron would take the chair: “Over to you then, Brian.”

Fortunately she was immediately challenged by comrades who argued that someone from the branch itself should chair the meeting. Heron and Sikorski replied that, in view of the “bad feelings” of the previous meeting, it was felt that a “neutral” national officer should oversee proceedings. The issue was put to the meeting. The proposal that Heron should chair was defeated 11 votes to nine.

Comrade Goss then stated that he should take up his elected position, and this was (reluctantly) accepted by the meeting. The bumptious fool had not learnt a thing. The manner in which he conducted himself did nothing to help the cause of the Fiscites and the machine Labourites.

It was moved from the floor that the branch executive’s proposed agenda should be changed to allow discussion of the previous meeting to be taken first. The document produced by Driver, Gibson and Ward (they were the members of the branch executive who refused to walk out of the September 12 meeting) should act as the minutes. Goss first insisted that the agenda was “not for discussion” and must stand as presented by the branch executive and the national officers (item one was a report back from the branch executive meeting with comrades Sikorski and Heron). However comrades protested that the meeting must have the right to decide upon its own agenda. Like bullies do, he backed down when confronted by superior force: “Have it your own way,” he conceded.

The proposal to change the agenda was vigorously opposed by the national officers and their cronies, Ann Goss and Drummond. Comrade Ann Goss said that the last meeting was “doubtful constitutionally” and comrade Heron pleaded that the NEC had been “invited to come in good faith”. He claimed that the letter the NEC had received from comrade Driver had asked for an investigation - untrue - and that anyway what actually happened at the last meeting was contested. Heron said that he had been sent two letters from branch members which “completely contradict” the Driver-Gibson-Ward account.

Comrades who had not attended the last meeting began to lose patience. One said in exacerbation that he had not joined the SLP to take part in such wranglings. Another wanted to forget about the last meeting and instead talk about “real action”. However, as the debate proceeded, minds began to change. The democrats explained that a cover-up of comrade Goss’s outrageous misconduct would do the SLP no good. When the proposal to discuss the Driver-Gibson-Ward document was finally put to the vote it was carried by 19 to two (there were a number of abstentions). It had taken 40 minutes to establish this.

Comrade Alan Gibson now moved the following motion:

“That this meeting of the South London branch of the SLP endorses the decision of the branch meeting of Thursday September 12, as documented in paragraphs 8 and 12 of the report circulated by Ian Driver.”

It was accepted that the decisions of the previous meeting relating to branch reorganisation could be discussed under item two of the agenda, ‘proposals for reorganisation’, and the only other decision of September 12 still outstanding was the need for comrade Goss to apologise. Sikorski and Heron together with Drummond and Ann Goss did their best to defend Goss.

These McCarthyites likened the motion to a kangaroo court - what hypocrites! Heron, the witch hunter, said that the whole matter should be referred to the NEC, which could consider the matter in a calm atmosphere: ie, sweep it under the carpet. It should be pointed out that apart from one or two exceptions, all SLP democrats were behaving in a very calm and disciplined manner. Heron also suggested that the motion was equivalent to passing judgement without a hearing and without evidence, which would mean that democracy was being overridden - again what hypocrisy!

Goss was throughout the proceedings chairing in an arrogant, one-sided manner, frequently making sarcastic remarks during contributions he disagreed with: eg, “Did you decide that in the CPGB?” It was finally suggested that Goss should be replaced. In a pathetic attempt to intimidate, Sikorski made a point of taking down the names of the mover and seconder. Goss confidently asked for a vote. He and his allies were humiliated in a 26 to six vote.

By now Sikorski and Heron were on the defensive. They must have been regretting their implicit support for the thug, Goss.

Three replacements were proposed. Comrades Drummond, Gibson and Sikorski (not surprisingly the latter declined the nomination, now knowing he faced certain defeat). The vote was 19 for comrade Gibson, 10 for Drummond.

At last the meeting proceeded smoothly and democratically. A comrade of South American origin made a heartfelt and dramatic intervention. He had lived under military dictatorship. He had been held hostage by paramilitaries. But he had never experienced the chair in the workers’ movement refusing to accept democratic decisions and instead swearing, “Fuck, fuck, fuck” at comrades.

Two alternatives were put to the meeting: to endorse the decision that Goss should apologise (14 votes); to refer the matter to the NEC (10 votes). Comrade Goss then said: “If that is the wish of the meeting, I apologise.” There was a diplomatic round of applause.

It was now rapidly approaching nine o’clock (as with the previous meeting it started late - 20 minutes) and branch reorganisation had not been touched upon. Comrade Steve Freeman proposed an extension to 9.30, and that another meeting be convened in two weeks where there could be a full discussion. Comrade Ann Goss said she had to get home on time to relieve her baby-sitter and that the NEC had made a ruling that no meeting should continue more than two hours (naturally in the name of women’s rights, not curbing debate). However comrade Drummond was determined to keep to her script. This troublesome branch had to be broken up.

Comrade Drummond proposed that a discussion on reorganisation be taken now as the national officials were present. Suddenly Mrs Goss discovered that she could phone her baby-sitter. It was decided 14 votes to 10 to continue the meeting until 10pm (there was no protest from Sikorski and Heron about women’s rights - they had lost the battle over Goss, but the war must continue).

There were two proposals before the meeting: the NEC recommendation to split the branch into ‘constituency clusters’, with only members of a particular constituency having the right to take decisions which affected that constituency. When a constituency branch did not exist, the next highest level of the party could decide, but “subject to the NEC” - in other words an atomised membership and an all-powerful NEC bureaucracy.

The other proposal came from comrade Steve Freeman and was for a continued South London branch but with sub-units. He argued that in South London,

“our central task is to educate, organise and hence unite a cadre. We need to do this in order to intervene effectively at the general election. At present we are a bunch of raw recruits to a new army. We are individuals, not a fighting unit. A policy which breaks us up into small units makes the problem worse. We need unity, not fragmentation. We need centralisation, not anarchy.”

Amazingly, comrade Heron argued for the branch executive-NEC recommendation by pointing to the example of Greater Manchester, which was liquidated by diktat. He admitted that the branch had been broken up without the agreement of the membership, but now “broad agreement” had been won “through practice”. He warned that even if there was a democratic vote to continue the South London branch, “comrades will split into localities and they will be constitutionally recognised”.

One old staunch Labourite said he did not want endless political debate in one big branch. “I don’t need theory,” he declared. “Local issues are what’s important.” He referred to those in the branch with “an SWP or CP agenda”. Backing him, another comrade derided Marxist theory: he wanted to start organising against the JSA.

Comrade Gibson bent over backwards so as not to appear anti-feminist. At one point he reversed his previous decision to move to a vote after Ann Goss had complained that three women, including herself of course, had not been called to speak. Nor had several male comrades. But in the SLP all members are equal, or so comrade Heron says. The three female comrades were allowed to speak, including Ann Goss, though she had already spoken twice and some of the male comrades had not spoken at all.

Unfortunately there was no united opposition to the idea of immediately reorganising the South London branch. The idea of an ordered transition to smaller units after a full discussion at an AGM was not clearly expressed.

In his reply comrade Heron put forward the prospect of the SLP quickly becoming a mass party:

“We can start to replace Labour as the mass party of the working class, even if we only have 2,000 members at present. Do not hesitate around the politics of the far left and the Communist Party. We are driving towards a mass party. If there are only two or three now in a constituency branch, so be it.”

The branch executive-NEC proposal for an immediate break-up received 16 votes. The proposal to wait until after an AGM 13.

The meeting then voted on whether to split into two, three or four ‘constituency clusters’. The branch executive-NEC had originally proposed seven, but Heron presented an amendment in favour of four. However the proposal for two - South East and South West London - won the day with 17 votes.

The meeting ended in some confusion. It appears that the division of the membership will be carried out by the executive of a South London branch which no longer exists and that the local Lambeth and Lewisham groups will apparently continue.

Constitution mark II

Having sent off my 50p I eventually received a copy of the SLP’s so-called constitution. I have had no time to study it, but two things immediately hit me.

Firstly, it is dated May 4 1996. Secondly, there have been changes introduced, compared with the December 10 1995 version. For example, we now have 18 clause four ‘objects’ instead of 15.

May 4 was the day when the membership of the SLP met at our founding conference in Camden Town Hall. However, as far as I can recall, we did not at any time vote for or even debate a constitution.

Who then adopted this purported constitution? Clause six states that “government of the party shall be by party congress”, and clause 10 says: “The constitution or any part thereof may only be amended by a resolution carried by a two-thirds majority card vote at party congress.” We appear to have government of the SLP by the NEC, which has unconstitutionally imposed its own draft constitution.